If Parties Really Represented Their Members
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
November 7, 2010 8:48pm CST
If parties really represented their members, we'd have to have a lot more than just the 2 major ones. It's really kind of silly that we limit ourselves to just the 2.
We have factions within each party that are really pretty incompatible, and constantly water down the ability of the parties to cater to the needs or wants of anyone.
What does it really mean to say you are a Democrat? Does it mean you support Obama? The recent midterm elections would prove otherwise. Does it mean you're against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Well, not if you look at who in Congress have continued to support the war for the last 4 years. Does it mean you are against Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Well, not necessarily.
What does it mean to say you are Republican? Does it mean you are for fiscal responsibility? Tell that to the last 4 Republican presidents and all the Republican lead Congresses (none of which ran without some surplus). Does it mean you are for smaller government? When was the last Republican president or Congress to shrink it? Does it mean you want lower taxes? Sure, the last Republican Congress and President lowered the income tax rates, but the over all tax burdon has increased at the state level, regardless of the letter following the name of the people in charge.
The stereotype says that if you are Demacrat but not Liberal, you're a Moderate. As if there were no Conservative Democrats. If you're a Republican, you must be either Conservative or a Moderate. If you're a Liberal with an R after your name,then you're a RINO.
So let's cut the pretending crap, shall we?
The two party system is for simplistic stereotyping that doesn't serve anyone's best interest. Let's have several parties that actually stand for something more than "winning elections"!
4 responses
@djbtol (5493)
• United States
8 Nov 10
I agree that the two party system, at least the way it works now, does not seem to be doing us any good. But I wonder what we would have if we actually had accurate labels. Would we then have six or eight candidates? And when the election is over, would the voter really have a better chance of having a candidate he truly agreed with? Would the voters be better served?
From my personal perspective, and I am a Repbulican, I can see the benefit of having some Libertarian victories to balance out what our government has become. But how does a third party candidate win? It seems pretty difficult.
1 person likes this
@djbtol (5493)
• United States
8 Nov 10
I'm sure you have thought this out much more than me, so I am just commenting, not challenging. It seems, then, with the current system, that we already have the potential for numerous candidates. We have everything from the far left socialist to the conservative GOP and several stops in between. Even if these candidates are all under the two big parties, they will still hold a range of positions. Most voters will not find a perfect candidate, and will have to decide which one they can best live with. Each candidate has the same opportunity to win (except for the issue of party politics).
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to mee that I am more likely to find the 'right' candidate with 4 different Repbulicans, than 4 individuals from separate parties (for instance, GOP, libertarian, green, constitutional).
It used to be that the parties had some kind of political platform that was declared early on. Obviously they did not always stick to their platform, but at least it provoked specific issue discussions. Now candidates tend to run on good looks and the 'position of the moment', depending who they are talking to.
I had not thought of the GOP as being like a union, but I am not denying it. In a sense, it does seem to be that the power and the money of the GOP are controlled by the hands of a few. It was also evident this election that when a TEA party candidate won the primary, the GOP was quick to denounce that person and deny support.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
8 Nov 10
It's not like we have to re-invent the wheel for this. Every election year we have "primary election" are there any restrictions to how many people can run for their party's nomination. Nope. People run, and the people vote. The fact that there can be many in the running hasn't stopped, or even bogged down a primary yet, has it?
We run a "primary" of sorts, where the top 3 or 4 vote getters become the candidates for president. Then we go to the "general" election as is.
For House and Senate, well, it would be the same.
~~~~~
How does a third party win? Party wouldn't be so important. I can tell you one thing though, third party candidates wouldn't get arrested when showing up and "presidential" debates.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
8 Nov 10
I believe the time has indeed come for the demise of the two party system. Personally, I've become even more disenchanted with the party I've been a member of for over 30 years because I dare to have opinions that don't fall in line with the conservative wing. Since I vote the candidate and not the party anyway, why stay?
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
8 Nov 10
Agreed Spalladino, and then start investigations against both under the RICO act.
Taskr: Since primaries are purely partisan activities, and it is illegal for public funds or assets to be used for purely partisan things, it should be illegal for public funds or property to be used in them.
@sincere4frdship (2228)
• India
8 Nov 10
Well..
There are many things to say about your started discussion. It differs from country to country if you will to find problem with any country politics.
Thing is that a party never represent any candidate in any state I think. It's always a person who represeent himself and when he comes to power ... more and more he only hold on all power to change future of party and state too.
At my place in India ...politics is totaly different in different state (It's state doesn't satisfy the definition of state.), as some where the parties politics is dependent upon caste then at some place on religion. But in both cases individual persons are there who represeent themselves ...
Thanks ...:)
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
8 Nov 10
As I've said many times before, the two party system is "Voting for Dummies". For most people it's too much work to learn anything about the candidates. Candidates are not people, they are letters, R and D and everyone with the appropriate letter is EXACTLY the same.
